June 21, 2007

Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law
Hearing on: The Continuing Investigation into the U.S. Attorneys Controversy and Related Matters


McNulty: … and the second has to do with the caging issue. And there it's a rather simple issue of where she's challenging my testimony. Senator Schumer asked me about an allegation involving Tim Griffin and a practice known as caging. And I said that I was aware of an article on that subject. But I didn't and here is my quote 'I didn't know anything about it personally', and that's perfectly true. I didn't know anything about it personally. The night before my hearing I was given an article and a short explanation and I did not have an opportunity to read those things, I knew about the existence of the issue, and I therefore did not wanna testify about a matter that I did not know about personally. And I just said that at the time.

Rep. Conyers: Thank you Madam Chair. Now you never, did you just say you didn't know anything about caging?

McNulty: What I said was that when I was asked that question at the Senate hearing, all I knew about the subject was that there was an article

Rep. Conyers: Was that article by Greg Palast about African American soldiers scrubbed by secret GOP hit lists? Dated June 16, 2006? Was that it as you recall?

McNulty: That's the article I'm referring to.

Rep. Conyers: And didn't Monica Goodling tell you that caging might come up at the hearing as she was briefing you?

McNulty: Yes that's correct.

Rep. Conyers: And did it come up?

McNulty: It did.

Rep. Conyers: And you didn't, and your response was you never looked at the caging even though Goodling told you. You saw the Greg Palast article and it was put in your in briefing testimony for the Senate in your briefing book

McNulty: Right.

Rep. Conyers: And you didn't look at the material in your briefing book outside of the article?

McNulty: Mister Chairman I didn't read the article, I was aware the article existed because Senator Prior referred to it in his testimony right before I got up to testify and Ms Goodling had raised the issue the day before. But I had not read the article and not become familiar with the issue, even if I had read that article Mister Chairman, if I just may say so, even if I had read that article, and I was asked that question again by Senator Schumer, I would still be very careful before I started speaking because, information based upon just one article

Rep. Conyers: But there was more in your briefing book.

McNulty: There was another Tim Griffin e-mail which gave his explanation of that article which I have now seen but I hadn't read before I testified.

Rep. Conyers: So could I infer that caging of black voters may not have been one of the high items on your list as your responsibility as Deputy Attorney General?

McNulty: Well I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Rep. Conyers: What I mean by it is, Goodling told you about it, it's in your case, it's in your Senate testimony and yet you fail to answer questions on the subject before the Senate and you tell me even now, as of today have you looked at it yet?

McNulty: I have now read the article and I've read that e-mail

Rep. Conyers: I mean the whole subject matter of caging. I mean this disenfranchises lots of people. Well first of all, you know caging is challenging lists of voters that are usually minority voters

Unidentified voice: Would the gentleman yield because I think Ms Goodling's testimony slightly inaudible

Rep. Conyers: Wait a minute, let me just finish my question, I'll get back to you Chris, I always do, you know that.
But we've got a whole chain of testimony, this is one of the big issues that came out of, at least a couple of major elections of this country, and you're saying 'yes I was told about it, yes it was in my tab in the briefing book for Senate testimony and yes I looked at Palast's article but I didn't read it'.
Why does it not generate much concern or attention to you this for me, voter rights is one of the big problems that we have in terms of having it enforced in the Department of Justice.

McNulty: Mister Chairman, if I may respond. We're dealing with two things here, first of all with regard to what I knew at the hearing I went to on February 6. I was about to go and testify on the question of why were certain US attorneys asked to leave and also what happened in the case and specifically what happened in the case of Arkansas. The subject having to do with an article making an allegation against a particular person like that was not directly related to what I was doing and as I was preparing and I was given an article the night before I didn't have the time, I didn't focus on that particular issue because I was, again I was anticipating the hearing looking at other subjects. Now secondly if you're raising with me as Deputy Attorney General the question of caging votes I'm very happy to work with you on that concern. I'm not prepared to give you a lengthy explanation of where that stands if there's anything happening at the Department of Justice on the matter

Rep. Conyers: Well just your commitment that we'll work on it together is good enough for me

McNulty: Well you certainly have that commitment. I don't mean to, now I'm obviously not going to be around for a long time but I certainly understand the importance of the issue to you and the department takes any issue involving voting rights seriously and we will make sure that's understood.

Rep. Conyers: Thank you, could I get an additional minute to yield to the ranking minority leader of this committee as I always do when he asks?

Rep. Cannon: In fact the gentleman is extraordinarily gracious in this regard. I just wanted to point out that the caging, we need to declare and I think Mister McNulty was fair here, caging is as I understand it a term of art for mailhouses it relates to what you do when a letter comes back because it didn't have an address that worked.

Rep. Conyers: I see, and that's all you know about caging?

Rep. Cannon: That's what I think the term generally means but I'm not an expert in the area at all?

Conyers: Well, well maybe I ought to bring you in and let's just work together on that because we're talking about the caging, the process where lists of voters to be challenged are generated that deal with blocking them out of the voting process, it's not a mail, it's not an issue of the mail at all.

Originally by Greg Palast from Greg Palast on June 21, 2007, 2:48pm


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.